Seneste avisartikler om klimadebatten

kristofferszilas skrev:
Public divide on climate change: Right wing nature or human nature?

"Arguments over publicly controversial scientific issues like climate change commonly include a lot of accusations of ignorance, naïveté, and ulterior motives. Take a step back from "why is this person such a lughead?" though, and a much better question arises: why are opinions so strongly tied to political affiliation? Why should liberals and conservatives come to such different views of what the scientific evidence does or does not show? If your brain just started compiling a laundry list of reasons why those on the other side of the issue from you obviously become mislead, stop for a moment and consider your side as well."

kristofferszilas skrev:
Climate Change Myths
"We're told there are more hurricanes now. We're told that hurr...............

kristofferszilas skrev:
Swamp forests in the US are being felled to help keep the lights on in the UK. Is this really the best way to combat climate change?

A spokeswoman of the journal, however, can see nothing but good in the debate. "Science is a self-correcting process," she wrote in an e-mail. Researchers published their results so that they confirmed could be refuted or corrected. "In this way science makes progress."

Whatever weather or climate variable "worked" was the one they used to predict whatever kind of "violence" could be quantified. The whole thing was then duct-taped together and lathered with colorful Bondo to conceal the gaping holes in commonsense. But at least they produced wee p-values (def: less than the magic number, which is what makes it science).

The most charitable way to describe the result is complete and utter nonsense. I do not want to exaggerate, but this paper is not even a mess. My God! the work, the hours the authors must have toiled. The supplementary material alone is thirty-eight pages!

At least journalists, the dears, believed them.

Kjeld Jul skrev:
I SCIENCE påstår forskere,at den globale opvarmning fører til mere vold i verden.
Er SCIENCE virkelig videnskabens seriøse organ?
Hans von Storch kritiserer SCIENCE redaktionen.

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/mehr-gewalt-durch-klimawandel-forscherstreit-um-science-studie-a-915590.html

Et idekatalog med 78 økonomisk gennemregnede redskaber, der skal bidrage til at sænke Danmarks drivhusgasudledninger i de kommende syv år. Det er, hvad Martin Lidegaard kunne løfte sløret for, da han præsenterede regeringens klimaplan. Endepunktet ligger klart. Regeringsgrundlaget fra 2011 siger ganske tydeligt, at det: "er regeringens mål, at Danmarks udslip af drivhusgasser i 2020 reduceres med 40% i forhold til niveauet i 1990". Med energiforliget er de 34 procentpoint fundet og den nye klimaplan skal derfor finde de sidste 6%, især indenfor landbruget og transportsektoren, der hidtil har været friholdt fra regeringens klimabestræbelser. Den samlede manko er på ca. 4 mio. tons CO2. De beregnede virkemidler levere reduktioner for godt 11 mio. tons CO2 frem til 2020. Det politiske kamp om, hvilke sektorer, der skal holde for – og hvor meget – kan begynde.

Forklaringen på tendensen er, at lave elpriser i Europa giver dårlig økonomi i at drive kraftværker og gør spildvarmen/fjernvarmen – og ikke elektricitet – til værkernes hovedprodukt. Derfor sætter energiselskaberne værkerne til salg, og da mange kommuner ønsker sig ombygninger og grøn fjernvarme, bliver det yderligere interessant for fjernvarmeselskaberne at få fod under eget kraftværk.

Måske de 78 forslag i klimaplanen kræver en mere dybdegående debat i selvstændige tråde - måske også en ny overordnet titel

August 20, 2013, marks Earth Overshoot day— the estimated date when the people on Earth have used up the planet's annual supply of renewable natural resources and reached its carbon-absorbing capacity. After that point, people are using more than the planet can sustain. It's a one-day reminder of a year-round problem — humans are living too large on a finite planet.

Fortidens katastrofer

I dag 14:45 - 15:40 på Discovery World

Foto: Discovery Channel

For 250 mio. år siden var Jordens eneste kontinent Pangea, som sprudlede af liv, før en masseudslettelse satte ind. Nu mener videnskabsfolk, at de har fundet årsagen.

Original titel: Prehistoric Disasters

Episode: 3

Episode titel: Ildens planet

Type: Dokumentar

I en årrække kan det dybe hav få os overfladebeboere til at tro, at den globale opvarmning er aflyst, og at vi derfor kan tage det roligt. Men det er forkert: Vores planet er fortsat under tydelig opvarmning.

Den globale gennemsnitlige temperatur nær jord- og havoverfladen er ikke steget nævneværdigt i de seneste 10-15 år. Dette faktum er ofte udgangspunktet i de klimarelaterede historier, der for tiden bringes i både danske og udenlandske medier.

kristofferszilas skrev:
Lawrence Solomon: Model mockery

"All predictions of global warming doom and destruction rest on meaningless computer models, say climate change skeptics such as Freeman Dyson, America's best known scientist, and Antonino Zichichi, Italy's best known scientist. They and other skeptics looked at models touted as reliable and declared them meaningless."

Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?

Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models' descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.

Robert S. Pindyck is a professor of economics and finance at MIT, with several decades' experience publishing articles and books dealing with energy. Moreover, as he explains in this interview, Pindyck believes that man-made emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will impose climate change damages on future generations, and is an advocate of a carbon tax agreement among the major world governments (though he is doubtful such a tax is politically feasible). With a pedigree like that, you might expect Pindyck to be very complimentary about the computer models that the Obama Administration and other policymakers are using to justify the economics of anti-carbon measures. But as it turns out, Pindyck has written a new, peer-reviewed paper (forthcoming in the Journal of Economic Literature) that is absolutely scathing in its critique of such models. In this post I'll highlight some of his points.

Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?


Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models' descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.

Billederne lå hengemt i mange år i en bunker og er først kommet frem for nyligt

Gletsjerne i Sydøstgrønland er på kraftig retur med den nuværende globale opvarmning. Men ny forskning på Københavns Universitet viser nu, at gletsjerne også er robuste og kan gendannes i løbet af relativ kort tid, hvis klimaet ændrer sig i koldere retning...

Using atmospheric and oceanic forcing from a mid-range future warming scenario that predicts warming by 2.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, we project a contribution of 19 to 30 millimetres to SLR from these glaciers by 2200. This contribution is largely (80 per cent) dynamic in origin and is caused by several episodic retreats past overdeepenings in outlet glacier troughs. After initial increases, however, dynamic losses from these four outlets remain relatively constant and contribute to SLR individually at rates of about 0.01 to 0.06 millimetres per year...

Kosmos skrev:
Her lidt om proportionerne:

Using atmospheric and oceanic forcing from a mid-range future warming scenario that predicts warming by 2.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, we project a contribution of 19 to 30 millimetres to SLR from these glaciers by 2200. This contribution is largely (80 per cent) dynamic in origin and is caused by several episodic retreats past overdeepenings in outlet glacier troughs. After initial increases, however, dynamic losses from these four outlets remain relatively constant and contribute to SLR individually at rates of about 0.01 to 0.06 millimetres per year...

(min fremhævning/kursivering)

(Bemærk at modellen omhandler fire gletchere, der tilsammen 'afvander' 22% af den grønlandske indlandsis).

Er det ikke nødvendigt,at udvinde skifergas i EU for at få energiomkostningerne reduceret og forøge industriens konkurrenceevne?

Det er velkendt, at massetabet fra den grønlandske indlandsis ikke ligefrem er den mest betydende post i havniveau-budgettet....

Kosmos skrev:

Det er velkendt, at massetabet fra den grønlandske indlandsis ikke ligefrem er den mest betydende post i havniveau-budgettet....

- og dertil er det befriende at få tal på bordet, når 'Pølletikken' fortsat tramper rundt i "Syv meters vandstigning"!

...at skyde fiktionsplaner ind i fiktionsplaner og opnå en svimmelhedsskabende effekt

There are two types of inputs that lend themselves to arbitrary choices. [...] The second is the set of functional forms and related parameters that determine the response of temperature to changing CO2 concentrations........

Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:
Hvis Pindyck tror, at CO2-følsomheden bare er et resultat af tilfældigt valgte parametre (eller ligefrem en værdi, man bare fastsætter på forhånd?),

Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:
P.S. Jeg må tilstå, at jeg opgav læsningen af Pindycks ikke peer-reviewede arbejdspapir ret hurtigt. Ikke fordi der ikke er mange spørgsmål, man sikkert med rette kan stille til "klimapolitikmodeller", men pga. sætninger som denne

There are two types of inputs that lend themselves to arbitrary choices. [...] The second is the set of functional forms and related parameters that determine the response of temperature to changing CO2 concentrations........

Hvis Pindyck tror, at CO2-følsomheden bare er et resultat af tilfældigt valgte parametre (eller ligefrem en værdi, man bare fastsætter på forhånd?), så gætter jeg på, at han får det meget svært i reviewprocessen. Og Pindyck er jo alle hans sikkert mange kvaliteter ufortalt også blot økonom, så hvis han ønsker at sætte en dagsorden med sit arbejde, så var det nok ikke dumt at få en fysiker eller klimatolog på som medforfatter, inden man sender så åbenlyse og grundlæggende fejl ind.

Hvis Pindyck tror, at CO2-følsomheden bare er et resultat af tilfældigt valgte parametre (eller ligefrem en værdi, man bare fastsætter på forhånd?), så gætter jeg på, at han får det meget svært i reviewprocessen.

You might think that some input choices are more reasonable or defensible than others, but no, "reasonable" is very much in the eye of the modeler. Thus these models can be used to obtain almost any result one desires.

You might think that some input choices are more reasonable or defensible than others, but no, "reasonable" is very much in the eye of the modeler. Thus these models can be used to obtain almost any result one desires.

The list of pollees in the Zickfeld paper are largely the self-same people responsible for the largely bogus analyses that I've criticised over recent years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now. Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action. Of course, there may be others who lie in the other direction, which is why it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data. Since the IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported "this is what we think, because we asked our pals". It's essentially the Lindzen strategy in reverse: having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you".

Resultatet kan altså farves helt ekstremt af forskerens personlige holdninger og det endda uden at han/hun behøver være en af de typer, som James Annan beretter om i et nyligt blogindlæg, der ikke går af vejen for at lyve om størrelsen på klimasensitiviteten for at tilskynde til politisk handling

Pouls Schou (f. 1965) er chefkonsulent i De Økonomiske Råd og ekstern lektor ved Københavns Universitet

Synspunkter i kronikken afspejler ikke nødvendigvis holdningen hos De Økonomiske Råds formandskab

En nylig undersøgelse fastslår nemlig, at uenigheden blandt eksperterne om årsagen til klimaforandringerne er næsten forsvindende. Tusindvis af videnskabelige artikler om global opvarmning og klimaforandringer blev klassificeret, og blandt de artikler, der giver udtryk for årsagen til forandringerne, siger 97 pct., at mennesket spiller en væsentlig rolle.

Boe Carslund-Sørensen skrev:
http://jyllands-posten.dk/opinion/breve/ECE5891643/uenig-i-uenighed/

En nylig undersøgelse fastslår nemlig, at uenigheden blandt eksperterne om årsagen til klimaforandringerne er næsten forsvindende. Tusindvis af videnskabelige artikler om global opvarmning og klimaforandringer blev klassificeret, og blandt de artikler, der giver udtryk for årsagen til forandringerne, siger 97 pct., at mennesket spiller en væsentlig rolle.

Skal der så udledes, at når mange "eksperter" er enige, så holder de op med at udføre videnskablig arbejde ?

Kristoffer Haldrup skrev:

Boe Carslund-Sørensen skrev:
http://jyllands-posten.dk/opinion/breve/ECE5891643/uenig-i-uenighed/

En nylig undersøgelse fastslår nemlig, at uenigheden blandt eksperterne om årsagen til klimaforandringerne er næsten forsvindende. Tusindvis af videnskabelige artikler om global opvarmning og klimaforandringer blev klassificeret, og blandt de artikler, der giver udtryk for årsagen til forandringerne, siger 97 pct., at mennesket spiller en væsentlig rolle.

Skal der så udledes, at når mange "eksperter" er enige, så holder de op med at udføre videnskablig arbejde ?

Nej.